Originally posted by British nationalist60 White nationalists in this country have a duty to do all we legally can to get the Labour Party out of government and put the only government who gives a s*** about its own people

The Labour Party thinks it's establishing favourite measures and rules, because there is not the slightest form of protest. There aren't any street riots, there aren't any (white) "terrorist attacks" ...

There's just nobody who stands up in public ... the white population just seems to be indifferent and weak.

There are only a few people which post a comment on a anonymous webforum, do you really think the government is worried because of that situation?! I don't think so.

Is voting for the BNP the solution? Again, I don't think so. It's just because the mass-media isn't free and objective, there isn't a lot of wide public support, and even when people wake up, I think it will take another dozen of elections before the BNP has enough support to make things harder for the other political parties.
Then it could be too late!

So I suggest the only solution that will have short-term effect is the use of violence, somewhat as the preparatory phase of a civil war. It's hard to say, but I can't imagine another solution that will have a nearly-immediate effect.

The story is that the government wants to set up in-house medical facilities in detention centres. It feels this would take the pressure off the already overworked family physicians in the country (who I assume are normally the ppl who have to see a.s. when they settle in the centres).

I'm not sure how or even if asylum seekers are given medical checks when they first enter the country. However, in Canada, I believe illegals are often first checked by military doctors. I wonder if this would be a viable option?

I look at it this way, if it keeps these people in the centres and away from the towns and villages, go for it. They shouldn't be mixing with the general population if there is any concerns regarding their fitness. In fact, they shouldn't be allowed outside of the centres at all until their application for asylum has been properly processed.

An asylum seeker mother who cannot breastfeed because she is HIV positive has won a key High Court battle for the legal right to free milk for her four-month-old baby girl. A judge allowed a legal challenge by "T", an Ethiopian, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, against a Government refusal to provide her with tokens to obtain formula milk.

The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) said later it was "delighted" with the ruling. The judge said T, a single parent, claimed asylum in July 1999 and had her claim refused in March 2001 but then launched an appeal which had not yet been heard.
Last November she was moved by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) into accommodation in Wolverhampton, and by then was four months pregnant. A month later she was diagnosed HIV positive. Her daughter was born on March 8 this year, but tests established she had not picked up the virus from her mother. In court Dinah Rose, appearing for T, told the court free formula milk currently cost between £6 and £7 a week for babies. T, as an asylum seeker, was prohibited from working and could not return to Ethiopia because she feared persecution and, in any event, would have poor prospects of survival there because she was HIV positive.
==============================================http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/s...914621,00.html

Miss Bubble said....
I'm not sure how or even if asylum seekers are given medical checks when they first enter the country. However, in Canada, I believe illegals are often first checked by military doctors. I wonder if this would be a viable option? .......

That was some years ago( actually perhaps more like a few decades ago), Miss Bubble, they now are sent to regular clinics, and they can be given some priority depending on their health status.